Matthew 6:15

28 thoughts on “Matthew 6:15”

1. George F Somsel says:

   It is an aor subj so it would not be “have forgiven” (as though it were a perf).  It indicates a time antecedent to the divine forgiveness — “If you do not forgive men, neither will your father forgive you.”  There is probably little distinction, but let’s try to keep things straight.  It is known as a third class condition or a future condition.  It would seem to be a general condition.

    george gfsomsel

   … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.

   – Jan Hus

     Reply

     March 23, 2011 at 10:23 pm
2. Oun Kwon says:

   Taking together with 6:12 (with v.l. in aorist), I feel, it seems more natural to take it as antecedent to the speaker’s time, (with the divine forgiveness to be a future relative to the speaker’s time of asking forgiveness).

   The scenario I have in mind is: We have forgiven. Then, upon asking God to forgive us, He is going to forgive us. If we have not, He is not going to.

   I hope I have expressed well enough for you to see my line of understanding.

   Oun Kwon.

     Reply

     March 23, 2011 at 11:02 pm
3. George F Somsel says:

   It must be understood — wait for it.  IN ITS CONTEXT.  The context is that of teaching the disciples (and therefore the Church) to pray: Οὕτως οὖν προσεύχεσθε ὑμεῖς· … καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφεληματα ἡμῶν, ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν. KAI AFES hHMIN TA OFELHMATA hHMWN, hWS KAI hHMEIS AFHKAMEN TOIS OFEILETAIS hHMWN.

   Thus the context is that of whenever they pray indicating a general condition.   “If you do not forgive, neither will your father …”

    george gfsomsel

   … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.

   – Jan Hus

     Reply

     March 23, 2011 at 11:14 pm
4. Oun Kwon says:

   Superficially so.

   Superifically so. However, …

   If I am correct, what I get from the text in question is that our forgiving is to be consequent of God’s forgiveness. In such context, if we say that God forgives us when we forgive others and He will not if we don’t, we do have not a small problem to solve. It makes God’s forgiveness to be very conditional to our forgiveness.

   Oun Kwon.

     Reply

     March 24, 2011 at 9:09 am
5. George F Somsel says:

   Perhaps you don’t understand English any more than you understand Greek.  “If you don’t forgive men, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions.”  george gfsomsel

   … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.

   – Jan Hus

     Reply

     March 24, 2011 at 9:17 am
6. "Alastair Haines" says:

   Friends,

   perhaps both English and Greek here are proving Professor Conrad’s theory that less ambiguous human languages might reduce human conflicts.

   Context and conditionals are relevant here as already noted. The aorist subjunctive in the protasis (AFHTE) contrasts with an future indicative in the apodosis (AFHSEI).

   I take it that the subjunctive is sufficiently explained by the conditional, but how do we explain the aorist? Why not simple gnomic usage? IF you all are forgiving [by nature], THEN your heavenly Father will forgive you.

   Gnomic verbal ideas contrast with episodic verbal ideas, so we can forget time. Pulling back from imagining episodes where individuals forgive or fail to forgive, frees things up from reading Matthew as saying “forgive or be damned.”

   The gnomic idea can be expressed in English, as a so-called first conditional. If you forgive, then God will forgive. But that is ambiguous in English, at least in my variety of it. So I would be inclined to translate (if someone forced me to translate) the gnomic of the Greek in some way.

   Note also, Matthew 6:12: “Forgive (AFES) us … as (hWS) we forgive (AFHKAMEN)”. Kappa aorist, not perfect, gnomic interpretation. Forgive as we forgive, not forgive because we have forgiven.

   Matthew 6:12 really needs to be gnomic, and coming before 14-15 as it does, makes reading them easier.

   I do hope this reading is correct, you’d all jolly well be sure to forgive me if I’m wrong though. 😉

   alastair

     Reply

     March 24, 2011 at 1:58 pm
7. Carl Conrad says:

   But — I honestly don’t believe there’s a bit of ambiguity here.

   And this is the standard form of what some call a “future more vivid” condition with protasis in present or more commonly aorist subjunctive in the sense, “If ever X should (at some time in the future) occur … ” and with apodosis in the form of a future indicative in the sense, ” … then Y will occur.”

   The “gnomic” aorist is fundamentally an Indicative category. AFHTE in the verses here is not Gnomic.

   I think you’re wrong, but I have to forgive you or I have no right to expect forgiveness!

   See Smyth, §1931 (http://artflx.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.9:6:131.perseusmonographs) See Wallace, GGBB, p. 562 “Gnomic Aorist”

   href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org

   Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

     Reply

     March 24, 2011 at 2:20 pm
8. George F Somsel says:

   Note what A.T. has to say regarding time in the subjunctive

   “(   If Robertson is correct (and I am certain he is), it cannot be gnomic or specify time in any way. 

    α) No Time Element in the Subjunctive and Optative. There is only relative time (future), and that is not due to the tense at all. The subjunctive is future in relation to the speaker, as is often true of the optative, though the optative standpoint is then more remote, a sort of future from the standpoint of the past.”george gfsomsel

   … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.

   – Jan Hus

     Reply

     March 24, 2011 at 2:20 pm
9. "Alastair Haines" says:

   Robertson seems fine to me, not that I’d be inclined to disagree with him anyway.

   It seems we agree that time is not part of the intention of the Greek, maybe we disagree about whether it is the Mood (subjunctive) or Aspect (aoristic) that communicates that intention.

   Why can’t *both* Mood *and* Aspect in Mt 6:15, together with *both* conditional construction *and* context, constrain viewing the protasis as a whole, from the outside, as a general condition, not piecemeal, nor from the inside, nor in a specific or once-off kind of way.

   Those oppositions are generally accepted by the grammars, in a wide diversity of contexts. They are helpful for confirming interpretation in this verse, aren’t they?

   Which idea is in the Greek? 1. A forgives B sin X, so God forgives A sin Y 2. A forgives B sin X, so God forgives A all sins 3. A forgives all, so God forgives A some sin Y 4. A forgives all, so God forgives A all sins 5. A mostly forgives all, and God forgives A all sins

   Aren’t there many clues in the text pushing interpretation towards the later interpretations? I’d propose it’s exactly those same clues that push towards (5) over (4).

   I think the plurality of the objects of both verbs is also part of the logic. Perhaps that’s an easier constraint on interpretation.

   Maybe “gnomic aorist” is not the best term. Perhaps the generality and maxim-like feel of the verses arises from grammatical features other than the aorist. But I’m not sure I want to abandon the term or connection yet.

   In any case, I don’t think a single instance of unforgiveness satisfies the condition of the protasis in 6:15. So Oun Kwon has the right idea and right questions.

   alastair

   Note what A.T. has to say regarding time in the subjunctive “(α) No Time Element in the Subjunctive and Optative. There is only relative time (future), and that is not due to the tense at all. The subjunctive is future in relation to the speaker, as is often true of the optative, though the optative standpoint is then more remote, a sort of future from the standpoint of the past.” If Robertson is correct (and I am certain he is), it cannot be gnomic or specify time in any way.

   href=”mailto:afhaines@tpg.com.au”>afhaines@tpg.com.au … so we can forget time.

   Pulling back from imagining episodes where individuals forgive or fail to forgive, frees things up from reading Matthew as saying “forgive or be damned.”

     Reply

     March 25, 2011 at 3:21 am
10. Carl Conrad says:

    How can we say that time is NOT part of the intention of the Greek? We have an IF clause in the aorist subjunctive and a RESULT clause in the FUTURE INDICATIVE:

    IF you do X (now or at any time hereafter), THEN your heavenly Father WILL FORGIVE you.

    It’s not a General condition but a Future condition. General conditions involve a protasis setting forth what one may do at any time and an apodosis setting forth what always happens when the terms of the protasis hold.

    I’m sorry and I may be utterly dense here, but I really don’t understand what seems to me a need to dilute the forcefulness of this Jesus-saying. It doesn’t say, “If you forgive SOME sins … ” nor, “If you do/do not forgive ALL sins …”, but rather it says, “If you do/do not forgive people (ANQRWPOIS) their (TA) sins … ” — and the consequence is: God will/will not forgive you.”

    Moreover the Jesus-traditions in the gospels drive home this principle repeatedly. Think of Peter’s question about the number of times one should forgive a brother who sins (Matt 18:21-22 and the parable that follows immediately with its “punch line”: 34 KAI ORGISQEIS hO KURIOS AUTOU PAREDWKEN AUTON TOIS BASANISTAIS hEWS hOU APODWi PAN TO OFEILOMENON. 35 hOUTWS KAI hO PATHR MOU hO OURANIOS POIHSEI hUMIN, EAN MH AFHTE hEKASTOS TWi ADELFWi AUTOU APO TWN KARDIWN hUMWN

    href=”mailto:afhaines@tpg.com.au”>afhaines@tpg.com.au

      Reply

      March 25, 2011 at 5:03 am
11. "Alastair Haines" says:

    Professor Conrad

    In English, does the above imply that a single instance of withholding forgiveness brings consequences? It’s the first thing that comes to my mind, but not the only one; and, for me at least, the second thought seems the better one–if I’m not IN THE HABIT of forgiving men (plural), then I can’t expect forgiveness (eschatalogically).

    So I disagree with Professor Conrad about the English, anyway. I think it’s ambiguous. If it’s not ambiguous, then Oun Kwon has the right idea, and my second thought is the right one.

    But that’s just English, is the Greek any clearer? The Greek seems to be more grammatically marked (or at least inflected) than the English, though perhaps it’s just differently marked.

    We have three references to human forgiveness, all aorist at 6:12 (AFHKAMEN), and 6:14-15 (AFHTE x2). The first is indicative, the others subjunctive. I mentioned that “the subjunctive is sufficiently explained by the conditional.” Prof. C. specified which conditional, so we agree there.

    (Though, of course, EAN + subjunctive in the protasis need not have future reference, e.g. 1 Cor 7:11, Mark 7:11, or James 2:7. The conditional classes are guidelines according to many grammarians.)

    However, I’m not sure where Prof. C. gets the idea that “The ‘gnomic’ aorist is fundamentally an Indicative category.” Perhaps this depends on what one means by “gnomic”, but I can’t see how gnomic semantic propositions, are necessarily or fundamentally indicative.

    I’m not sure how Wallace (GGBB:562) helps, who doesn’t explicitly exclude aorist subjunctives. “The aorist indicative is occasionally used to present a timeless, general fact. When it does so, it does not refer to a particular even that _did_ happen, but to a generic even that _does_ happen. Normally, it is translated like a simple present tense.” In fact Wallace provides a note that suits our verses in Matthew 6 very well imo. “The aorist, under certain circumstances, may be used of an action that in reality is iterative or customary. In this respect it is not very different from a customary _present_, but is quite different from a customary _imperfect_. The gnomic aorist is not used to describe an event that “used to take place” (as the imperfect does), but one that “has taken place” over a long period of time or, like the present, _does take place.”

    Perhaps Prof. C. wants to follow the sense of the gnomic usage as explained by Smyth. “The aorist may express a general truth. The aorist simply states a past occurrence and leaves the reader to draw the inference from a concrete case that what has occurred once is typical of what often occurs”. If gnomic usage is a usage to “express a general truth”, it may work as described in the indicative, with marked past tense. But when past tense is not marked, as in the subjunctive, it might be explained in other ways.

    For other gnomic aorists in the subjunctive I’m endebted to Scott A. Starker, for putting online a paper submitted to Don Carson. Just from Matthew: Mt 6:14,15; 12:11; 12:29; 16:26; 18:12,13; 22:24. Matthew 6:12 doesn’t appear, possibly because Starker is only looking at conditionals.

    I should offer one final thought to Oun Kwon, though, and that is, even if Oun, Scott and myself (inter alia) are wrong here, Oun doesn’t need to give up on the theological principle of unconditional salvation, considering Augustines famous “command what you will, but give what you command.” But here is not the place to elaborate on that.

    alastair

      Reply

      March 25, 2011 at 5:46 am
12. "Alastair Haines" says:

    How can we say that time is NOT part of the intention of the Greek? We have an IF clause in the aorist subjunctive and a RESULT clause in the FUTURE INDICATIVE: IF you do X (now or at any time hereafter), THEN your heavenly Father WILL FORGIVE you.

    Reply from AH: Well, actually I think the rest of us, who agree on this, are speaking a bit loosely. I can’t speak for the others, but I meant time with regard to the protasis. The apodosis/result seems primarily eschatalogical, as I mentioned, but I wouldn’t want to restrict it to that, hence my gravitation to the term “gnomic”.

    So, sure, I think there is some futurity there in the Greek. IF you habitually do X (previously, now or hereafter), THEN your heavenly Father will forgive you (then and eternally).

    The truth will out. Gnomic English future?

    This whole topic is very interesting from a typological perspective also. “Most languages phrase both antecedent and consequent clauses as ordinary indicative clauses. … Many (perhaps most) languages have strong tendencies to use different aspects in the antecedent and consequent of hypothetical conditionals. English uses the simple (nonprogressive) present in the antecedent, while many other languages use a perfective. English uses a future in the consequent, while many other languages use an all-purpose imperfective. … If the antecedent clause denotes gnomic eventualities, it may appear in an imperfective form even in a language that normally has perfective antecedents.” Heath, “Coordination”, in Haspelmath, Coordinating constructions, Typological Studies 58, (2004).

    AH:

    Reply from Prof. C. It’s not a General condition but a Future condition. General conditions involve a protasis setting forth what one may do at any time and an apodosis setting forth what always happens when the terms of the protasis hold.

    Reply from AH: Agreed, it’s not a PRESENT general condition, it’s broader still than that, with a weight towards the future. To call it “gnomic” is interpretation, not grammar. There are other semantic constraints at play. Sure, the verse fit the grammatic pattern of future conditionals, but it a gnomic reading doesn’t violate those guidelines, it nuances them.

    AH:

    Prof. C.: I’m sorry and I may be utterly dense here, but I really don’t understand what seems to me a need to dilute the forcefulness of this Jesus-saying. It doesn’t say, “If you forgive SOME sins … ” nor, “If you do/do not forgive ALL sins …”, but rather it says, “If you do/do not forgive people (ANQRWPOIS) their (TA) sins … ” — and the consequence is: God will/will not forgive you.”

    AH: As chance would have it, there’s a Korean film playing on TV here in Sydney just now called Secret Sunshine (2007) about a woman who thinks she can’t be a Christian any more because she can’t forgive the man who murdered her son. She, and others in the film, read Matthew 6:15 as requiring of her prompt and total forgiveness. Is that really in the Greek? That’s what prompts my “need to dilute the forcefulness of this Jesus-saying”. What if it didn’t have that force?

    If the aorists (and other cues) prompt a gnomic (or maybe generic) sense, the condition is based on habitual or customary disposition to forgive, or refusal to do so, with God returning in kind whichever disposition is expressed.

    Anyway, I agree with your translations above, though I think they are still slightly ambiguous in English.

    Prof. C.: Moreover the Jesus-traditions in the gospels drive home this principle repeatedly. Think of Peter’s question about the number of times one should forgive a brother who sins (Matt 18:21-22 and the parable that follows immediately with its “punch line”: 34 KAI ORGISQEIS hO KURIOS AUTOU PAREDWKEN AUTON TOIS BASANISTAIS hEWS hOU APODWi PAN TO OFEILOMENON. 35 hOUTWS KAI hO PATHR MOU hO OURANIOS POIHSEI hUMIN, EAN MH AFHTE hEKASTOS TWi ADELFWi AUTOU APO TWN KARDIWN hUMWN

    AH: Sure, yet again agreed, the Jesus tradtions even go beyond forgiveness to love for enemies. But can salvation be lost on account of missing an opportunity to love an enemy? Fortunately, at least that tradition has no parallel to Matthew 6:15.

      Reply

      March 25, 2011 at 6:58 am
13. Carl Conrad says:

    I think you’re trying to read more into it than it says. But maybe not. Maybe we can chip away at it: some sins, or maybe one or two, we won’t forgive; surely that failure or those failures won’t be held against us when we seek forgiveness? Or in the LP itself, Mt 6:12 KAI AFES hHMIN TA OFEILHMATA hHMWN, hWS KAI hHMEIS AFHKAMEN TOIS OFEILETAIS hHMWN, does this mean that we ask God’s forgiveness of our sins in the manner that we ourselves sometimes, or usually, or most of the time forgive our debtors? And, supposing that AFES and AFHKAMEN are “gnomic” or in some sense pointing at “general” validity, does that mean that we pray to be forgiven “generally” or “most of the time”? — or does it mean that we forgive our debtors “ordinarily” or “most of the time.” Does it mean, in other words, that we may sometimes slip up and fail to forgive — and perhaps God may somehow slip up and fail to forgive us? Again, as I’ve said before, I don’t understand the urgency to dilute what the text seems (to me, at least) to be saying pretty clearly.

    Is “the right idea” an idea about what the Greek text (and, of course, an appropriate English equivalent) actually says?

    And I must say, I don’t understand why the questions begin with how the Greek is translated into English; I should think that the meaning of the Greek text is the primary question.

    It’s true, EAN (and hOTAN and hOSTIS AN) + subjunctive need not have future reference; when the RESULT clause is present indicative, we have a GENERAL condition. Of course, what we have in Mt 6:12 is not a condition at all, but a petition in the imperative and a dependent adverbial clause, hWS KAI hHMEIS AFHKAMEN TOIS OFEILETAIS hHMWN. I’ve already said what I think about reading 6:12 as a generalizing proposition: we want God to forgive us our sins “generally” just as we “generally” forgive our debtors.

    Incidentally, AFHKAMEN is, as was mentioned earlier, a kappa aorist. There doesn’t seem to be a distinct perfect tense for this verb, although I’d guess that this form serves the purpose of a perfect tense well enough. I really think that the Koine perfect and aorist are in the process of merging in the same manner as aorist and perfect earlier merged in Latin.

    But does the aorist tense-form of AFHKAMEN imply that we should consider it a “gnomic aorist”? Again it seems to come around to the question: Do we “generally” or “usually” forgive our debtors?

    Gnomic propositions (from GNWMH, Greek for “truism”) are about what does ordinarily, regularly occur — e.g. the sun rising in the morning, the postman always ringing twice, the things that Ecclesiastes enumerates as “vanities.” That is the province of the indicative mood; the subjunctive, optative, and imperative, on the other hand, concern probability, desirability and urgency.

    Nor does Wallace offer any instances of non-indicative gnomic aorists. The question is then whether a “gnomic” form can or does set forth a statement about what generally or normally or usually happens, but need not happen all the time; there may be occasions when what the “gnomic” statement says is not applicable. We may sometimes fail to forgive (and God may …?).

    These should perhaps be discussed. You mention that the paper has been put online, but you don’t say where. Is there a URL?

    This really ought not even to have been mentioned, as it suggests that the interpretation being argued here is theologically motivated. I would hope that additional discussion of this question could steer completely away from such considerations and focus on the grammar of the text in question. A further exploration of supposed non-indicative “gnomic” aorists might well be instructive.

    Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

      Reply

      March 25, 2011 at 7:00 am
14. "=)" says:

    Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

    If I am allowed to add, although this may be deviating from grammar, the literal reading may not always have an absolute meaning but may have to be interpreted in its scope, which may not even be the immediate context. For example, Paul quotes the old testament, saying, “[there] is not [a] righteous [one], not even one.” but clearly he does not include Christ in saying that, and moreover he also says that we are justified (counted righteous) through Christ. So although the literal meaning of this passage is clearly “your father in the heavens will forgive your trespasses if and only if you forgive men their trespasses.” how he forgives and how we forgive is not specified there, but we have to forgive, and as ones who believe into Christ we do want to forgive, and I think we all agree that true forgiveness is only in Christ, whether God’s forgiveness of our sins, whether our forgiveness of others. =)

    Grace be with you. David Lim

      Reply

      March 26, 2011 at 7:04 am
15. George F Somsel says:

    It is an aor subj so it would not be “have forgiven” (as though it were a perf).  It indicates a time antecedent to the divine forgiveness — “If you do not forgive men, neither will your father forgive you.”  There is probably little distinction, but let’s try to keep things straight.  It is known as a third class condition or a future condition.  It would seem to be a general condition.

     george gfsomsel

    … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.

    – Jan Hus

      Reply

      May 15, 2018 at 8:33 pm
16. Oun Kwon says:

    Taking together with 6:12 (with v.l. in aorist), I feel, it seems more natural to take it as antecedent to the speaker’s time, (with the divine forgiveness to be a future relative to the speaker’s time of asking forgiveness).

    The scenario I have in mind is: We have forgiven. Then, upon asking God to forgive us, He is going to forgive us. If we have not, He is not going to.

    I hope I have expressed well enough for you to see my line of understanding.

    Oun Kwon.

      Reply

      May 15, 2018 at 9:02 pm
17. George F Somsel says:

    It must be understood — wait for it.  IN ITS CONTEXT.  The context is that of teaching the disciples (and therefore the Church) to pray: Οὕτως οὖν προσεύχεσθε ὑμεῖς· … καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφεληματα ἡμῶν, ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν. KAI AFES hHMIN TA OFELHMATA hHMWN, hWS KAI hHMEIS AFHKAMEN TOIS OFEILETAIS hHMWN.

    Thus the context is that of whenever they pray indicating a general condition.   “If you do not forgive, neither will your father …”

     george gfsomsel

    … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.

    – Jan Hus

      Reply

      May 15, 2018 at 9:02 pm
18. Oun Kwon says:

    Superficially so.

    Superifically so. However, …

    If I am correct, what I get from the text in question is that our forgiving is to be consequent of God’s forgiveness. In such context, if we say that God forgives us when we forgive others and He will not if we don’t, we do have not a small problem to solve. It makes God’s forgiveness to be very conditional to our forgiveness.

    Oun Kwon.

      Reply

      May 15, 2018 at 8:33 pm
19. George F Somsel says:

    Perhaps you don’t understand English any more than you understand Greek.  “If you don’t forgive men, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions.”  george gfsomsel

    … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.

    – Jan Hus

      Reply

      May 15, 2018 at 9:02 pm
20. "Alastair Haines" says:

    Friends,

    perhaps both English and Greek here are proving Professor Conrad’s theory that less ambiguous human languages might reduce human conflicts.

    Context and conditionals are relevant here as already noted. The aorist subjunctive in the protasis (AFHTE) contrasts with an future indicative in the apodosis (AFHSEI).

    I take it that the subjunctive is sufficiently explained by the conditional, but how do we explain the aorist? Why not simple gnomic usage? IF you all are forgiving [by nature], THEN your heavenly Father will forgive you.

    Gnomic verbal ideas contrast with episodic verbal ideas, so we can forget time. Pulling back from imagining episodes where individuals forgive or fail to forgive, frees things up from reading Matthew as saying “forgive or be damned.”

    The gnomic idea can be expressed in English, as a so-called first conditional. If you forgive, then God will forgive. But that is ambiguous in English, at least in my variety of it. So I would be inclined to translate (if someone forced me to translate) the gnomic of the Greek in some way.

    Note also, Matthew 6:12: “Forgive (AFES) us … as (hWS) we forgive (AFHKAMEN)”. Kappa aorist, not perfect, gnomic interpretation. Forgive as we forgive, not forgive because we have forgiven.

    Matthew 6:12 really needs to be gnomic, and coming before 14-15 as it does, makes reading them easier.

    I do hope this reading is correct, you’d all jolly well be sure to forgive me if I’m wrong though. 😉

    alastair

      Reply

      May 15, 2018 at 8:33 pm
21. George F Somsel says:

    Note what A.T. has to say regarding time in the subjunctive

    “(   If Robertson is correct (and I am certain he is), it cannot be gnomic or specify time in any way. 

     α) No Time Element in the Subjunctive and Optative. There is only relative time (future), and that is not due to the tense at all. The subjunctive is future in relation to the speaker, as is often true of the optative, though the optative standpoint is then more remote, a sort of future from the standpoint of the past.”george gfsomsel

    … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.

    – Jan Hus

      Reply

      May 15, 2018 at 8:33 pm
22. Carl Conrad says:

    But — I honestly don’t believe there’s a bit of ambiguity here.

    And this is the standard form of what some call a “future more vivid” condition with protasis in present or more commonly aorist subjunctive in the sense, “If ever X should (at some time in the future) occur … ” and with apodosis in the form of a future indicative in the sense, ” … then Y will occur.”

    The “gnomic” aorist is fundamentally an Indicative category. AFHTE in the verses here is not Gnomic.

    I think you’re wrong, but I have to forgive you or I have no right to expect forgiveness!

    See Smyth, §1931 (http://artflx.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.9:6:131.perseusmonographs) See Wallace, GGBB, p. 562 “Gnomic Aorist”

    href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org

    Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

      Reply

      May 15, 2018 at 9:02 pm
23. "Alastair Haines" says:

    Robertson seems fine to me, not that I’d be inclined to disagree with him anyway.

    It seems we agree that time is not part of the intention of the Greek, maybe we disagree about whether it is the Mood (subjunctive) or Aspect (aoristic) that communicates that intention.

    Why can’t *both* Mood *and* Aspect in Mt 6:15, together with *both* conditional construction *and* context, constrain viewing the protasis as a whole, from the outside, as a general condition, not piecemeal, nor from the inside, nor in a specific or once-off kind of way.

    Those oppositions are generally accepted by the grammars, in a wide diversity of contexts. They are helpful for confirming interpretation in this verse, aren’t they?

    Which idea is in the Greek? 1. A forgives B sin X, so God forgives A sin Y 2. A forgives B sin X, so God forgives A all sins 3. A forgives all, so God forgives A some sin Y 4. A forgives all, so God forgives A all sins 5. A mostly forgives all, and God forgives A all sins

    Aren’t there many clues in the text pushing interpretation towards the later interpretations? I’d propose it’s exactly those same clues that push towards (5) over (4).

    I think the plurality of the objects of both verbs is also part of the logic. Perhaps that’s an easier constraint on interpretation.

    Maybe “gnomic aorist” is not the best term. Perhaps the generality and maxim-like feel of the verses arises from grammatical features other than the aorist. But I’m not sure I want to abandon the term or connection yet.

    In any case, I don’t think a single instance of unforgiveness satisfies the condition of the protasis in 6:15. So Oun Kwon has the right idea and right questions.

    alastair

    Note what A.T. has to say regarding time in the subjunctive “(α) No Time Element in the Subjunctive and Optative. There is only relative time (future), and that is not due to the tense at all. The subjunctive is future in relation to the speaker, as is often true of the optative, though the optative standpoint is then more remote, a sort of future from the standpoint of the past.” If Robertson is correct (and I am certain he is), it cannot be gnomic or specify time in any way.

    href=”mailto:afhaines@tpg.com.au”>afhaines@tpg.com.au … so we can forget time.

    Pulling back from imagining episodes where individuals forgive or fail to forgive, frees things up from reading Matthew as saying “forgive or be damned.”

      Reply

      May 15, 2018 at 8:33 pm
24. Carl Conrad says:

    How can we say that time is NOT part of the intention of the Greek? We have an IF clause in the aorist subjunctive and a RESULT clause in the FUTURE INDICATIVE:

    IF you do X (now or at any time hereafter), THEN your heavenly Father WILL FORGIVE you.

    It’s not a General condition but a Future condition. General conditions involve a protasis setting forth what one may do at any time and an apodosis setting forth what always happens when the terms of the protasis hold.

    I’m sorry and I may be utterly dense here, but I really don’t understand what seems to me a need to dilute the forcefulness of this Jesus-saying. It doesn’t say, “If you forgive SOME sins … ” nor, “If you do/do not forgive ALL sins …”, but rather it says, “If you do/do not forgive people (ANQRWPOIS) their (TA) sins … ” — and the consequence is: God will/will not forgive you.”

    Moreover the Jesus-traditions in the gospels drive home this principle repeatedly. Think of Peter’s question about the number of times one should forgive a brother who sins (Matt 18:21-22 and the parable that follows immediately with its “punch line”: 34 KAI ORGISQEIS hO KURIOS AUTOU PAREDWKEN AUTON TOIS BASANISTAIS hEWS hOU APODWi PAN TO OFEILOMENON. 35 hOUTWS KAI hO PATHR MOU hO OURANIOS POIHSEI hUMIN, EAN MH AFHTE hEKASTOS TWi ADELFWi AUTOU APO TWN KARDIWN hUMWN

    href=”mailto:afhaines@tpg.com.au”>afhaines@tpg.com.au

      Reply

      May 15, 2018 at 8:33 pm
25. "Alastair Haines" says:

    Professor Conrad

    In English, does the above imply that a single instance of withholding forgiveness brings consequences? It’s the first thing that comes to my mind, but not the only one; and, for me at least, the second thought seems the better one–if I’m not IN THE HABIT of forgiving men (plural), then I can’t expect forgiveness (eschatalogically).

    So I disagree with Professor Conrad about the English, anyway. I think it’s ambiguous. If it’s not ambiguous, then Oun Kwon has the right idea, and my second thought is the right one.

    But that’s just English, is the Greek any clearer? The Greek seems to be more grammatically marked (or at least inflected) than the English, though perhaps it’s just differently marked.

    We have three references to human forgiveness, all aorist at 6:12 (AFHKAMEN), and 6:14-15 (AFHTE x2). The first is indicative, the others subjunctive. I mentioned that “the subjunctive is sufficiently explained by the conditional.” Prof. C. specified which conditional, so we agree there.

    (Though, of course, EAN + subjunctive in the protasis need not have future reference, e.g. 1 Cor 7:11, Mark 7:11, or James 2:7. The conditional classes are guidelines according to many grammarians.)

    However, I’m not sure where Prof. C. gets the idea that “The ‘gnomic’ aorist is fundamentally an Indicative category.” Perhaps this depends on what one means by “gnomic”, but I can’t see how gnomic semantic propositions, are necessarily or fundamentally indicative.

    I’m not sure how Wallace (GGBB:562) helps, who doesn’t explicitly exclude aorist subjunctives. “The aorist indicative is occasionally used to present a timeless, general fact. When it does so, it does not refer to a particular even that _did_ happen, but to a generic even that _does_ happen. Normally, it is translated like a simple present tense.” In fact Wallace provides a note that suits our verses in Matthew 6 very well imo. “The aorist, under certain circumstances, may be used of an action that in reality is iterative or customary. In this respect it is not very different from a customary _present_, but is quite different from a customary _imperfect_. The gnomic aorist is not used to describe an event that “used to take place” (as the imperfect does), but one that “has taken place” over a long period of time or, like the present, _does take place.”

    Perhaps Prof. C. wants to follow the sense of the gnomic usage as explained by Smyth. “The aorist may express a general truth. The aorist simply states a past occurrence and leaves the reader to draw the inference from a concrete case that what has occurred once is typical of what often occurs”. If gnomic usage is a usage to “express a general truth”, it may work as described in the indicative, with marked past tense. But when past tense is not marked, as in the subjunctive, it might be explained in other ways.

    For other gnomic aorists in the subjunctive I’m endebted to Scott A. Starker, for putting online a paper submitted to Don Carson. Just from Matthew: Mt 6:14,15; 12:11; 12:29; 16:26; 18:12,13; 22:24. Matthew 6:12 doesn’t appear, possibly because Starker is only looking at conditionals.

    I should offer one final thought to Oun Kwon, though, and that is, even if Oun, Scott and myself (inter alia) are wrong here, Oun doesn’t need to give up on the theological principle of unconditional salvation, considering Augustines famous “command what you will, but give what you command.” But here is not the place to elaborate on that.

    alastair

      Reply

      May 15, 2018 at 8:33 pm
26. "Alastair Haines" says:

    How can we say that time is NOT part of the intention of the Greek? We have an IF clause in the aorist subjunctive and a RESULT clause in the FUTURE INDICATIVE: IF you do X (now or at any time hereafter), THEN your heavenly Father WILL FORGIVE you.

    Reply from AH: Well, actually I think the rest of us, who agree on this, are speaking a bit loosely. I can’t speak for the others, but I meant time with regard to the protasis. The apodosis/result seems primarily eschatalogical, as I mentioned, but I wouldn’t want to restrict it to that, hence my gravitation to the term “gnomic”.

    So, sure, I think there is some futurity there in the Greek. IF you habitually do X (previously, now or hereafter), THEN your heavenly Father will forgive you (then and eternally).

    The truth will out. Gnomic English future?

    This whole topic is very interesting from a typological perspective also. “Most languages phrase both antecedent and consequent clauses as ordinary indicative clauses. … Many (perhaps most) languages have strong tendencies to use different aspects in the antecedent and consequent of hypothetical conditionals. English uses the simple (nonprogressive) present in the antecedent, while many other languages use a perfective. English uses a future in the consequent, while many other languages use an all-purpose imperfective. … If the antecedent clause denotes gnomic eventualities, it may appear in an imperfective form even in a language that normally has perfective antecedents.” Heath, “Coordination”, in Haspelmath, Coordinating constructions, Typological Studies 58, (2004).

    AH:

    Reply from Prof. C. It’s not a General condition but a Future condition. General conditions involve a protasis setting forth what one may do at any time and an apodosis setting forth what always happens when the terms of the protasis hold.

    Reply from AH: Agreed, it’s not a PRESENT general condition, it’s broader still than that, with a weight towards the future. To call it “gnomic” is interpretation, not grammar. There are other semantic constraints at play. Sure, the verse fit the grammatic pattern of future conditionals, but it a gnomic reading doesn’t violate those guidelines, it nuances them.

    AH:

    Prof. C.: I’m sorry and I may be utterly dense here, but I really don’t understand what seems to me a need to dilute the forcefulness of this Jesus-saying. It doesn’t say, “If you forgive SOME sins … ” nor, “If you do/do not forgive ALL sins …”, but rather it says, “If you do/do not forgive people (ANQRWPOIS) their (TA) sins … ” — and the consequence is: God will/will not forgive you.”

    AH: As chance would have it, there’s a Korean film playing on TV here in Sydney just now called Secret Sunshine (2007) about a woman who thinks she can’t be a Christian any more because she can’t forgive the man who murdered her son. She, and others in the film, read Matthew 6:15 as requiring of her prompt and total forgiveness. Is that really in the Greek? That’s what prompts my “need to dilute the forcefulness of this Jesus-saying”. What if it didn’t have that force?

    If the aorists (and other cues) prompt a gnomic (or maybe generic) sense, the condition is based on habitual or customary disposition to forgive, or refusal to do so, with God returning in kind whichever disposition is expressed.

    Anyway, I agree with your translations above, though I think they are still slightly ambiguous in English.

    Prof. C.: Moreover the Jesus-traditions in the gospels drive home this principle repeatedly. Think of Peter’s question about the number of times one should forgive a brother who sins (Matt 18:21-22 and the parable that follows immediately with its “punch line”: 34 KAI ORGISQEIS hO KURIOS AUTOU PAREDWKEN AUTON TOIS BASANISTAIS hEWS hOU APODWi PAN TO OFEILOMENON. 35 hOUTWS KAI hO PATHR MOU hO OURANIOS POIHSEI hUMIN, EAN MH AFHTE hEKASTOS TWi ADELFWi AUTOU APO TWN KARDIWN hUMWN

    AH: Sure, yet again agreed, the Jesus tradtions even go beyond forgiveness to love for enemies. But can salvation be lost on account of missing an opportunity to love an enemy? Fortunately, at least that tradition has no parallel to Matthew 6:15.

      Reply

      May 15, 2018 at 8:33 pm
27. Carl Conrad says:

    I think you’re trying to read more into it than it says. But maybe not. Maybe we can chip away at it: some sins, or maybe one or two, we won’t forgive; surely that failure or those failures won’t be held against us when we seek forgiveness? Or in the LP itself, Mt 6:12 KAI AFES hHMIN TA OFEILHMATA hHMWN, hWS KAI hHMEIS AFHKAMEN TOIS OFEILETAIS hHMWN, does this mean that we ask God’s forgiveness of our sins in the manner that we ourselves sometimes, or usually, or most of the time forgive our debtors? And, supposing that AFES and AFHKAMEN are “gnomic” or in some sense pointing at “general” validity, does that mean that we pray to be forgiven “generally” or “most of the time”? — or does it mean that we forgive our debtors “ordinarily” or “most of the time.” Does it mean, in other words, that we may sometimes slip up and fail to forgive — and perhaps God may somehow slip up and fail to forgive us? Again, as I’ve said before, I don’t understand the urgency to dilute what the text seems (to me, at least) to be saying pretty clearly.

    Is “the right idea” an idea about what the Greek text (and, of course, an appropriate English equivalent) actually says?

    And I must say, I don’t understand why the questions begin with how the Greek is translated into English; I should think that the meaning of the Greek text is the primary question.

    It’s true, EAN (and hOTAN and hOSTIS AN) + subjunctive need not have future reference; when the RESULT clause is present indicative, we have a GENERAL condition. Of course, what we have in Mt 6:12 is not a condition at all, but a petition in the imperative and a dependent adverbial clause, hWS KAI hHMEIS AFHKAMEN TOIS OFEILETAIS hHMWN. I’ve already said what I think about reading 6:12 as a generalizing proposition: we want God to forgive us our sins “generally” just as we “generally” forgive our debtors.

    Incidentally, AFHKAMEN is, as was mentioned earlier, a kappa aorist. There doesn’t seem to be a distinct perfect tense for this verb, although I’d guess that this form serves the purpose of a perfect tense well enough. I really think that the Koine perfect and aorist are in the process of merging in the same manner as aorist and perfect earlier merged in Latin.

    But does the aorist tense-form of AFHKAMEN imply that we should consider it a “gnomic aorist”? Again it seems to come around to the question: Do we “generally” or “usually” forgive our debtors?

    Gnomic propositions (from GNWMH, Greek for “truism”) are about what does ordinarily, regularly occur — e.g. the sun rising in the morning, the postman always ringing twice, the things that Ecclesiastes enumerates as “vanities.” That is the province of the indicative mood; the subjunctive, optative, and imperative, on the other hand, concern probability, desirability and urgency.

    Nor does Wallace offer any instances of non-indicative gnomic aorists. The question is then whether a “gnomic” form can or does set forth a statement about what generally or normally or usually happens, but need not happen all the time; there may be occasions when what the “gnomic” statement says is not applicable. We may sometimes fail to forgive (and God may …?).

    These should perhaps be discussed. You mention that the paper has been put online, but you don’t say where. Is there a URL?

    This really ought not even to have been mentioned, as it suggests that the interpretation being argued here is theologically motivated. I would hope that additional discussion of this question could steer completely away from such considerations and focus on the grammar of the text in question. A further exploration of supposed non-indicative “gnomic” aorists might well be instructive.

    Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

      Reply

      May 15, 2018 at 8:26 pm
28. "=)" says:

    Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

    If I am allowed to add, although this may be deviating from grammar, the literal reading may not always have an absolute meaning but may have to be interpreted in its scope, which may not even be the immediate context. For example, Paul quotes the old testament, saying, “[there] is not [a] righteous [one], not even one.” but clearly he does not include Christ in saying that, and moreover he also says that we are justified (counted righteous) through Christ. So although the literal meaning of this passage is clearly “your father in the heavens will forgive your trespasses if and only if you forgive men their trespasses.” how he forgives and how we forgive is not specified there, but we have to forgive, and as ones who believe into Christ we do want to forgive, and I think we all agree that true forgiveness is only in Christ, whether God’s forgiveness of our sins, whether our forgiveness of others. =)

    Grace be with you. David Lim

      Reply

      May 15, 2018 at 8:33 pm

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.